A close-up look at NYC education policy, politics,and the people who have been, are now, or will be affected by acts of corruption and fraud. ATR CONNECT assists individuals who suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool and are the "new" rubber roomers, and re-assigned. The terms "rubber room" and "ATR" mean that you or any person has been targeted for removal from your job. A "Rubber Room" is not a place, but a process.

Interesting FOIL Request To Joe Baranello, Comments By Robert Freeman, NYS Committee on Open Government

The staff of the Committee on Open Government
is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory
opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.

Dear

As you are aware, I have received a copy of your letter of appeal addressed to
Michael Best, General Counsel to the New York City Department of Education,
concerning the denial by the Department’s records access officer of a request
made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law by Daily News writer, Juan
Gonzalez. In the letter you indicated that, through its receipt by this
office, you are seeking an advisory opinion concerning the propriety of the
Department’s response.

In his request, Mr. Gonzalez sought the following:

“• copies of any correspondence, including email and blackberry
messages, between Eva Moskowitz, CEO of both Harlem Success Academy and Success
Charter Network, and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, that specifically relate to
requests from Moskowitz for DOE approval of or assistance to Harlem Success in
expanding the number of students and/or schools operated by her organizations,
and in promoting and marketing her schools to the general public, any an all
written requests and/or proposals made by Moskowitz between January 1, 2006 and
July 1, 2009 for additional physical space in public school buildings for her
charter program.

• copies of any correspondence on the same subject matters,
including email and blackberry messages, between Moskowitz and Michael Duffy,
executive director of the office of charter schools, for the period of January
1, 2006 to July 1, 2009.

• copies of any correspondence on the same subject matters,
including email and blackberry messages, between Moskowitz and John White,
chief operating officer of Portfolio Development, for the period of January 1,
2006 to July 1, 2009.”

The records access officer, Mr. Joseph A. Baranello, denied the request in its
entirety, offering several grounds for denial appearing in §87(2) of the
Freedom of Information Law. He referred first to §87(2)(a), which
pertains to records that “are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or
federal statute.” In that regard, he cited the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act, 20 USC §1232g (“FERPA”) concerning records identifiable to
students and §§4503 and 3101 of the CPLR, which deal respectively with the
attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Next, reference was
made to §§87(2)(b) and 89(2), both of which permit an agency to deny access
insofar as disclosure would constitute “an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.” And third, he cited §87(2)(g) concerning inter-agency and intra-agency
materials.

In consideration of the grounds for denial referenced by Mr. Baranello and my
understanding of the nature of the records at issue, I offer the following
comments.

First, and significantly in consideration of the absence of any disclosure by
the Department in response to the request, and as you know, the Freedom of
Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated
differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records
or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in
§87(2)(a) through (j) of the Law. It is emphasized that the introductory
language of §87(2) refers to the authority to withhold "records or
portions thereof" that fall within the scope of the exceptions that
follow. In my view, the phrase quoted in the preceding sentence evidences
a recognition on the part of the Legislature that a single record or report,
for example, might include portions that are available under the statute, as
well as portions that might justifiably be withheld. That being so, I
believe that it also imposes an obligation on an agency to review records
sought, in their entirety, to determine which portions, if any, might properly
be withheld or deleted prior to disclosing the remainder.

The Court of Appeals confirmed its general view of the intent of the Freedom of
Information Law inGould v.
New York City Police Department, stating that:

"To ensure maximum access to government records, the 'exemptions
are to be narrowly construed, with the burden resting on the agency to
demonstrate that the requested material indeed qualifies for exemption' (Matter of Hanig v. State of New York
Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 79 N.Y.2d 106, 109, 580 N.Y.S.2d 715, 588
N.E.2d 750see,Public Officers Law § 89[4][b]).
As this Court has stated, '[o]nly where the material requested falls squarely
within the ambit of one of these statutory exemptions may disclosure be
withheld' (Matter of Fink v.
Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d, 567, 571, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E.2d
463)" [89 NY2d 267, 275 (1996)].

Just as significant, the Court inGouldrepeatedly specified that a blanket
denial of access to records is inconsistent with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Law. In that case, the New York City Police
Department contended that complaint follow up reports could be withheld in
their entirety on the ground that they fall within the exception regarding
intra-agency materials, §87(2)(g), one of the exceptions cited in response to
your columnist’s request. The Court, however, wrote that:
"Petitioners contend that because the complaint follow-up reports contain
factual data, the exemption does not justify complete nondisclosure of the
reports. We agree" (id., 276), and stated as a general
principle that "blanket exemptions for particular types of documents are
inimical to FOIL's policy of open government" (id., 275). The
Court also offered guidance to agencies and lower courts in determining rights
of access and referred to several decisions it had previously rendered, stating
that:

"...to invoke one of the exemptions of section 87(2), the
agency must articulate 'particularized and specific justification' for not
disclosing requested documents (Matter
of Fink v. Lefkowitz, supra, 47 N.Y.2d, at 571, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467,
393 N.E.2d 463). If the court is unable to determine whether withheld
documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption, it should
conduct an in camera inspection of representative documents and order
disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material (see, Matter of Xerox Corp. v.
Town of Webster, 65 N.Y.2d 131, 133, 490 N.Y.S. 2d, 488, 480 N.E.2d
74;Matter of Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health
& Hosps. Corp., supra, 62 N.Y.2d, at 83, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, 464
N.E.2d 437)" (id.).

In the context of the request, the Department engaged in a blanket denial of
access in a manner which, in my view, is equally inappropriate. I am not
suggesting that the records sought must be disclosed in full. Rather,
based on the direction given by the Court of Appeals in several decisions, the
records must be reviewed by that agency for the purpose of identifying those
portions of the records that might fall within the scope of one or more of the
grounds for denial of access. As the Court stated later in the decision:
"Indeed, the Police Department is entitled to withhold complaint follow-up
reports,or specific portions thereof,
under any other applicable exemption, such as the law-enforcement exemption or
the public-safety exemption, as long as the requisite particularized showing is
made" (id., 277; emphasis added).

Second, I agree that those portions of the records sought that include
information that is personally identifiable to a student must be redacted to
comply with FERPA. I do not believe, however, that the provisions of the CPLR
cited in the response are applicable or, therefore, that they may properly be
asserted.

In brief, FERPA applies to all educational agencies or institutions in the
United States that participate in federal funding or loan programs. It
generally provides parents of minor students rights of access to education
records, a term broadly defined in federal regulations, 34 CFR §99.3, to parents
of the students. Concurrently, it generally prohibits disclosure of
personally identifiable information pertaining to a student to the public,
unless a parent consents to disclosure. If portions of the records at
issue include information that is personally identifiable to a student, those
portions must, in my view, be withheld. As emphasized earlier, only those
portions of the records subject to FERPA may be redacted; the remainder must be
disclosed, or conversely, may be withheld, in accordance with the provisions of
the Freedom of Information Law.

As you are aware, §4503 of the CPLR is a codification of the attorney-client
privilege, and §3101 creates an exemption from discovery regarding the work
product of an attorney. Section 3101 pertains disclosure in a context
related to litigation, and subdivision (a) reflects the general principle that
"[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in
the prosecution or defense of an action..." It is intended to shield
from an adversary records that would result in a strategic advantage or
disadvantage, as the case may be. In a decision in which it was
determined that records could justifiably be withheld as attorney work product,
the "disputed documents" were "clearly work product
documents which contain the opinions, reflections and thought process of
partners and associates" of a law firm "which have not been
communicated or shown to individuals outside of that law firm" [Estate
of Johnson, 538 NYS 2d 173 (1989)]. It does not appear that the
records at issue relate to litigation or that the intent of §3101(c) is
pertinent in the context of your request.

In another decision in which the ability to withhold records based on the
assertion of the attorney-client privilege or that records reflect the work
product of an attorney was discussed, it was found that:

In a discussion of the parameters of the attorney-client relationship and the
conditions precedent to its initiation, it has been held that:

"In general, 'the privilege applies only if (1) the asserted
holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom
the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his
subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication relates to a fact of
which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of
strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on
law or (ii) legal services (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not
(d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has
been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client'" [People v. Belge,
59 AD 2d 307, 399 NYS 2d 539, 540 (1977)].

In short, based on the foregoing and in consideration of the nature of the
content of the records at issue, I do not believe that they could be
characterized as attorney work product. Further, since it serves as a
barrier to disclosure, it is emphasized that the courts have narrowly construed
the exemption concerning attorney work product. It has been held that
only the work product that involves the learning and professional skills
possessed only by an attorney is exempt from disclosure [seeSoper v. Wilkinson Match, 176
Ad2d 1025 (1991);Hoffman v.
Ro-San Manor, 73 AD2d 207 (1980)]. Assuming that the records sought
do not reflect the specialized skill that can be offered only by an attorney, I
do not believe that they can be withheld based on a contention that they
consist of attorney work product. Similarly, based on their content, I do
not believe that the records fall within the scope of the attorney-client
privilege. Ms. Moskowitz is not an officer of employee of the
Department. She is not the client of the Department’s attorneys, and to
the best of my knowledge, the Department officials with whom she communicated
are not attorneys or were not functioning as attorneys. For the foregoing
reasons, the records sought, in my opinion, would not be subject to the
exemptions from disclosure conferred by §§3101 or 4503 of the CPLR.

Next, with respect to the assertion of §§87(2)(b) and 89(2)(b) of the Freedom
of the Freedom of Information Law concerning unwarranted invasions of personal
privacy, I point out that several judicial decisions, both New York state and
federal, pertain to records about individuals in those capacities and indicate
that the records are not of a “personal nature.” For instance, one
involved a request for the names and addresses of mink and ranch fox farmers
from a state agency (ASPCA v. NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets,
Supreme Court, Albany County, May 10, 1989). In granting access, the
court relied in part and quoted from an opinion rendered by this office in
which it was advised that "the provisions concerning privacy in the
Freedom of Information Law are intended to be asserted only with respect to
'personal' information relating to natural persons". The court held
that:

"...the names and business addresses of individuals or
entities engaged in animal farming for profit do not constitute information of
a private nature, and this conclusion is not changed by the fact that a
person's business address may also be the address of his or her
residence. In interpreting the Federal Freedom of Information Law Act (5
USC 552), the Federal Courts have already drawn a distinction between
information of a 'private' nature which may not be disclosed, and information
of a 'business' nature which may be disclosed (see e.g.,Cohen v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 575 F Supp. 425 (D.C.D.C. 1983)."

In another decision,Newsday,
Inc. v. New York State Department of Health(Supreme Court, Albany County, October
15, 1991)], data acquired by the State Department of Health concerning the
performance of open heart surgery by hospitals and individual surgeons was
requested. Although the Department provided statistics relating to
surgeons, it withheld their identities. In response to a request for an
advisory opinion, it was advised by this office, based upon the New York
Freedom of Information Law and judicial interpretations of the federal Freedom
of Information Act, that the names should be disclosed. The court agreed
and cited the opinion rendered by this office.

Like the New York Freedom of Information Law, the federal Act includes an
exception to rights of access designed to protect personal privacy.
Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6) states that rights conferred by the Act do not
apply to "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of
which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy." In construing that provision, federal courts have held
that the exception:

"was intended by Congress to protect individuals from public
disclosure of 'intimate details of their lives, whether the disclosure be of
personnel files, medical files or other similar files'. Board of Trade of City of Chicago
v. Commodity Futures Trading Com'nsupra,
627 F.2d at 399, quotingRural
Housing Alliance v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 498 F.2d 73, 77 (D.C. Cir.
1974); seeRobles v. EOA,
484 F.2d 843, 845 (4th Cir. 1973). Although the opinion inRural Housingstated that the exemption 'is phrased
broadly to protect individuals from a wide range of embarrassing disclosures',
498 F.2d at 77, the context makes clear the court's recognition that the
disclosures with which the statute is concerned are those involving matters of
an intimate personal nature. Because of its intimate personal nature,
information regarding 'marital status, legitimacy of children, identity of
fathers of children, medical condition, welfare payment, alcoholic consumption,
family fights, reputation, and so on' falls within the ambit of Exemption
4. Id.By contrast, as Judge Robinson stated
in theChicago Board of Tradecase, 627 F.2d at 399, the decisions
of this court have established that information connected with professional
relationships does not qualify for the exemption" [Sims v. Central
Intelligence Agency, 642 F.2d 562, 573-573 (1980)].

InCohen, the decision
cited inASPCA v. Department
of Agriculture and Markets,supra,
it was stated pointedly that: "The privacy exemption does not apply
to information regarding professional or business activities.." (supra,
429). Similarly in a case involving disclosure of the identities of those
whose grant proposals were rejected, it was held that:

"The adverse effect of a rejection of a grant proposal, if it
exists at all, is limited to the professional rather than personal qualities of
the applicant. The district court spoke of the possibility of injury
explicitly in terms of the applicants' 'professional reputation' and 'professional
qualifications'. 'Professional' in such a context refers to the possible
negative reflection of an applicant's performance in 'grantsmanship' - the
professional competition among research scientists for grants; it obviously is
not a reference to more serious 'professional' deficiencies such as unethical
behavior. While protection of professional reputation, even in this
strict sense, is not beyond the purview of exemption 6, it is not at its
core" [Kurzon v. Department of Health and Human Services, 649 F.2d
65, 69 (1981)].

In short, in my opinion and as indicated in the decisions cited above, the
exception concerning privacy does not apply to records identifying or
pertaining to entities or individuals in relation to their business or
professional capacities. It does not appear, therefore, that either
§87(2)(b) or §89(2)(b) may validly be asserted as a means of denying access to
the records requested by Mr.Gonzalez.

Lastly, the response referred to §87(2)(g), which may, depending on their
content, permit an agency to withhold “inter-agency” or “intra-agency”
materials. It is my understanding that Ms. Moskowitz is the CEO of a
corporation, the Success Charter Network, that operates a charter school in New
York City. That entity, in my view, is not an agency, and if that is so,
§87(2)(g) does not serve as a basis for denying access.

Section 86(3) of the Freedom of Information Law defines the term “agency” to
mean:

"any state or municipal department, board, bureau, division,
commission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office or
other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function for
the state or any one or more municipalities thereof, except the judiciary or
the state legislature."

Based on the definition of “agency”, “inter-agency” materials
consist of communications between or among entities of state and local
government in New York; “intra-agency” consist of communications within an
agency, such as transmissions between the Chancellor and employees of the
Department. Because the communications at issue involved those between or
among Ms. Moskowitz, the CEO of a corporation, which is not an agency, and
officials at the Department, they could not, in my opinion, be characterized as
either inter-agency or intra-agency materials. If that is so, §87(2)(g)
does not apply as a ground for denial.

Even when that provision is applicable, it does not authorize a blanket denial
of access. Specifically, §87(2)(g) states that an agency may withhold
records that:

"are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:

i. statistical or factual tabulations or data;

ii. instructions to staff that affect the public;

iii. final agency policy or determinations; or

iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits
performed by the comptroller and the federal government..."

It is noted that the language quoted above contains what in effect is a double
negative. While inter-agency or intra-agency materials may be withheld,
portions of such materials consisting of statistical or factual information,
instructions to staff that affect the public, final agency policy or
determinations or external audits must be made available, unless a different
ground for denial could appropriately be asserted. Concurrently, those
portions of inter-agency or intra-agency materials that are reflective of
opinion, advice, recommendation and the like could in my view be withheld.

I note that in a case that reached the Court of Appeals, one of the contentions
was that certain reports could be withheld because they were not final and
because they related to incidents for which no final determination had been
made. The Court rejected that finding and stated that:

"...we note that one court has suggested that complaint
follow-up reports are exempt from disclosure because they constitutenonfinalintra-agency material, irrespective of
whether the information contained in the reports is 'factual data' (see,Matter of Scott v. Chief Medical
Examiner, 179 AD2d 443, 444,supra[citing Public Officers Law
§87[2][g][111]). However, under a plain reading of §87(2)(g), the
exemption for intra-agency material does not apply as long as the material
falls within any one of the provision's four enumerated exceptions. Thus,
intra-agency documents that contain 'statistical or factual tabulations or
data' are subject to FOIL disclosure, whether or not embodied in a final agency
policy or determination (see,Matter
of Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 62 NY2d
75, 83,supra;Matter of MacRae v. Dolce, 130
AD2d 577)..." [Gould et al. v. New York City Police Department, 87
NY2d 267, 276 (1996)].

The Court also dealt with the issue of what constitutes "factual
data" that must be disclosed under §87(2)(g)(i). In its
consideration of the matter, the Court found that:

"...Although the term 'factual data' is not defined by
statute, the meaning of the term can be discerned from the purpose underlying
the intra-agency exemption, which is 'to protect the deliberative process of
the government by ensuring that persons in an advisory role [will] be able to
express their opinions freely to agency decision makers' (Matter of Xerox
Corp. v. Town of Webster, 65 NY2d 131, 132 [quotingMatter of Sea Crest Constr. Corp.
v. Stubing, 82 AD2d 546, 549]). Consistent with this limited aim to
safeguard internal government consultations and deliberations, the exemption
does not apply when the requested material consists of 'statistical or factual
tabulations or data' (Public Officers Law 87[2][g][I]. Factual data,
therefore, simply means objective information, in contrast to opinions, ideas,
or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of
government decision making (see,Matter
of Johnson Newspaper Corp. v. Stainkamp, 94 AD2d 825, 827,affd on op below, 61 NY2d 958;Matter of Miracle Mile Assocs. v.
Yudelson, 68 AD2d 176, 181-182)” (id., 276-277).

In sum, with the exception of portions of the records sought that may be
withheld pursuant to FERPA and, therefore, §87(2)(a), it appears that the
records must be disclosed, for none of the remaining grounds for denial of
access may justifiably be asserted.

In an effort to enhance understanding of and compliance with the Freedom of
Information Law, and to obviate the need for costly litigation, copies of this
opinion will be sent to Department officials.

TV Appearances by Betsy Combier

Lawline

Contact me with a concern or issue

I assist anyone who needs help, so email me your problem to start the ball rolling! I am a teacher/parent advocate, and I am the editor/writer for this blog and the website parentadvocates.org. I also write about court corruption on my blog "NYC Court Corruption". I am interested in random injustice and the criminalizing of innocent people. If you want to chat you may email me at: betsy.combier@gmail.com and I'm on twitter and have a facebook page too. I'm not an attorney and do not give legal advice.

If you want to talk with me about your 3020-a charges, I consult and go over your case without charge. No fee.

And, in response to the lies of certain individuals who resent my work, the truth is that all conversations are confidential and I do not tape secretly.

Testimonial from an Exonerated Teacher

Dear Betsy,I am forever indebted to you, Betsy, for your expert counsel throughout a horrific ordeal. You worked tirelessly to prove my innocence in a 3020a proceeding that was instigated by a corrupt school district and fueled by lies. My proceedings ended with my complete exoneration, my record expunged and my immediate return to the classroom. We didn't even need to file an appeal! Thank you, Betsy. I am now eligible to retire and enjoy the benefits you helped me to protect. God bless you and the work you do protecting the innocent.Sincerely,Maria Gargano

My Thoughts and Raison d'etre

This blog is about the denial of Constitutional rights by the Mayor, the New York City Department of Education and the Chancellor, New York State and Federal Courts, New York State legislature, and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), as well as PACs and all parties participating in the business of public school education in New York City, to harm and in neglect of parents, children, and staff of public schools in the five boroughs. These thoughts are not simply mindless conclusions reached out of thin air, but a result of 14 years of research into the NYC DOE and the Courts as a reporter and paralegal.
I am an advocate of Unions and union rights, public schools and charters, and learning online as well as outside of the classroom. I cannot and do not support anyone, whether they be union management, government, private members of the political or legal system, or simply retired teachers with an agenda, if he or she tramples, discards, or rebuffs anyone's individual civil rights. As a reporter, journalist, advocate, researcher and paralegal, I have created this blog to inform the public about my experience working for the UFT and being the parent of four daughters who went through the public school system in NYC, as well as examine issues that flow from the massive denial of due process rights that I saw and have documented. The two most important points you should remember: first, everyone at the New York City Board/Department of Education and all Union bigs are motivated by power and money, and looking good. If anyone dares to blow the whistle on these racketeers, retaliation follows, so be a strategist; second, I am not an Attorney and nothing I write or say is legal advice, simply my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Betsy Combier, Editor
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com
New York Court Corruption
http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
Parentadvocates.org
http://www.parentadvocates.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/betsy.combier
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BetsyCombier
The NYC Public Voice
http://nycpublicvoice.blogspot.com/betsy.combier@gmail.com
Lawline July 27, 2011
http://www.teachem.com/lawlinetv/learn/lawline-tv-teachers-unions-the-last-in-first-out-rule/

Principal Anne Seifullah changes her image so that she can keep her job amidst sexting and trysts in the school, Robert Wagner Secondary Sch...

Google + Rubber Room Community

FAITH

When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly. Patrick Overton

Truth Seeks Light - Lies Seek Shadows

Twins Jill Danger (left) and Betsy Combier(right)

sayin like it is

Actions Have Consequences

Writing as Music

Rubber Room teachers wish me a happy birthday (2006)

"Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all."

Rubber Room Satire

The Labor Movement

The Teaching Equation

We Can Work Out Our Differences

The E-Accountability Foundation

The E-Accountability Foundation brings you this blog which highlights issues that have or should be read by people interested in civil rights, and accountability. The E-Accountability Foundation is a 501(C)3 organization that holds people accountable for their actions online and, through the internet, seeks to bring justice to anyone who has been harmed without reason. We give the'A for Accountability' Awardto those who are willing to blow the whistle on unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status.

AddThis

Performance Management - Office of Labor Relations

From Betsy Combier

The NYC Office of Labor Relations, with the support of the UFT, has issued to principals a document called"Performance Management" on how to get rid of an incompetent teacher. Who is an "incompetent teacher"? Anyone the NYC Department of Education wants to remove from the system because he/she is too senior (makes too much money), is disabled (and therefore cannot be deemed factory-perfect) and/or is other impaired (is a whistleblower, cannot be intimidated, is ethnically challenged - not the 'right' race, etc).

Candace R. McLaren

Director, Office of Special Investigations (OSI)

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers

Follow by Email

Polo Colon

"Rubber Room"

(1) a space where a worker subject to a disciplinary hearing or other administrative action waits and does no work; generally, a place or personal mind-set of isolation.(2) a literal reference to a padded cell, which is, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, “a room in a psychiatric hospital with padded walls to prevent violent patients from injuring themselves.”from Double-Tongued Dictionary http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/rubber_room/

"Rubberization"

The word "rubberization" is a new word that is used to describe the process of assigning and paying people to sit and do nothing in a drab room away from their place of employment while their employers make up charges that allege sexual or corporal misconduct without any facts upon which to base the allegation on.

Email Subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz

Theresa Europe, NYC BOE ATU Director

Robin Greenfield

Deputy Counsel to the NYC DOE

UFT Pres. Mike Mulgrew and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg

UFT umbrella pals

New York State Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez

ATR CONNECT

Tenured Teachers who are found to be guilty of misconduct or incompetency at 3020-a but are not terminated, who have blown the whistle on the misconduct of politically favored NYC Department of Education employees, and/or who are simply disliked for any reason can suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool - employees without rights or voices, and without chapter leader union representation.

This new group of people are the "new" rubber roomers without representation at the UFT and denied the protection of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, because basically they have been pushed out of their jobs unfairly and under color of law by Mayor Bloomberg and the Chief Executives of the Department of Education who call themselves "Chancellors", "Network Leaders", "Superintendents", etc., consistently without any facts or evidence to support the false claims.

A group of teachers who are, or were, made into ATRs, ATR Polo Colon, and I, Betsy Combier, an advocate for transparency and labor/employment rights, have joined together to expose the denial of due process, civil and human rights by chiefs of the NYC Department of Education (NYC DOE), certain arbitrators at 3020-a, leaders of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), the "investigators" -agents who work for the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI), Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) - and the Attorneys who work for the New York United Teachers (NYSUT), and the New York Law Department (Corporation Counsel).

In order to protect the safety of those who join this group to promote an end to the "Rubberization" process described on this blog since 2007, names of those who tell their stories will, for now, remain anonymous if the person so desires, and Polo and I will be the gatekeepers. So if you are an ATR, or know a story involving an ATR or someone re-assigned or about to go into a 3020-a, please use the email address advocatz77@gmail.com and give us your contact information. We will protect your anonymity and hold onto your privacy.

Betsy Combier and Polo Colon, Editors

FAITH When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly.

Patrick Overton

We have forty million reasons for failure but not a single excuse.Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Re-Assignment Overview by Betsy Combier

The New York City Board of Education decided in 2002 to rid the public school system of staff who interfered with their takeover and control. The criteria for a "good teacher" is now, more often than not, a "silent teacher", a person who never asks questions, is younger than 40, is making a salary below $50,000, does not care about kids and what they learn, or whether or not money (books, supplies, equipment, etc) is missing. When a teacher or staff member of a school dares to do the right thing and speaks out about wrong-doing - this person is often called a "whistleblower" or "flamethrower" - or, simply is not liked for any reason by the Principal/NYC personnel, suddenly he/she is accused of something by somebody ("given a label of "A", "B", "C", and so on) and whisked away to a drab room called a temporary re-assignment center or "rubber room". Members of the offices of the Special Commissioner of Investigation or the Office of Special Investigations then start work on building a case against the person to justify their being thrown in prison, declared "unfit for duty", or, as Mr. Joel Klein has said, characterized as "guilty of sexual activities and corporal punishment" against the children of New York City.The stories of the people I have met who sit every day in the 8 rubber rooms of NYC prove to me that Mr. Klein is very wrong about his assessment, and this blog is created to prove it to you.

Puppy Snooze

US Department of Labor ELAWS

Aeri Pang, Gotcha Squad Attorney

Attorney Pang, red dress, now chief Attorney For New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

NYC EdStats You Can Use

$12.5 billion: Annual New York City Department of Education (DOE) budget (2002)

$21 billion: Annual New York City DOE budget (2009)
1,719: Number officials employed by the DOE central administration in June 2002

2,442: Number of officials employed by the central administration as of November 2008

2: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2004.

22: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2007.

5: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2003.

23: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2008.

944: Number of contracts approved by DOE in 2008, at a total cost of $1.9 billion.

20: Percentage of contracts that exceeded estimated cost by at least 25 percent.

$67.5 million: Annual budget of Project Arts, a decade-old program that was the sole source of dedicated funding for arts education. It was eliminated in 2007.

86: Percentage of principals who said in a 2008 poll that they were unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes in their schools.

100,000: Number of seats DOE plans to provide for charter school students by 2012.

25,000: Number of seats DOE plans to build under 2010 to 2014 capital plan.

66,895: Number of K-3 school-children in classes of 25 or more during the 2008-09 school year.

15,440: Average number of seats per year built during the last six years of the Rudolph Giuliani administration.

10,895: Average number of seats per year built during the first six years of the Bloomberg administration.

27.2: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were Black.

14.1: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were Black.

53.3: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were white.

65.5: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were white.

76: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Latino students in 8th grade English Language Arts (ELA) in 2003.

75: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic students in 8th grade ELA in 2008.

77: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2003.

81: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2008.

54: Percentage of New York City public school parents who disapproved of Mayor Bloomberg’s handling of education, according to a March 2009 Quinnipiac poll.

Sources: New York City Council, New York City Comptroller’s Office, New York Daily News, New York Post, Eduwonkette, Quinnipiac Institute, Black Educator, Class Size Matters, New York City Schools Under Bloomberg and Klein.

Betsy Combier and NYSUT lawyer Chris Callagy

The New York City Whistle Award

NYC Whistlers, Winners of the NYC Whistle Award

...are those individuals in New York City who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. Whistlers ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up.

These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions.

Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

Betsy Combier

Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon

Condon "qualified" for his current post after Bloomberg lowered standards; who will leash him?

A great teacher

After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said: 'Let me see if I've got this right.

'You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.

'You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.

'You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job 'You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.

'You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.

'You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletinboard, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps. 'You want me to do all this and then you tell me. . . I CAN'T PRAY?

NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly

Joel Klein's famous statement about rubber room teachers and staff

On November 27, 2006, temporarily re-assigned teacher (TRT) Polo Colon asked Joel Klein, the "pretend" Chancellor of the NYC public school system, if he had voted to terminate teachers at the secret Executive Session held just before the public meeting of the Panel For Educational Policy.Mr. Klein answered,"We did not vote to terminate you. We did vote to terminate a teacher in executive Session...in fact, we voted to terminate two teachers. It's perfectly consistent with the law.Many teachers have been charged with sexual activities and some are charged with corporal punishment...I have no interest in removing people who are qualified to teach, I can assure you, because I dont get any return...and in fact, I have complained publicly about how long this process drags out. But our first concern will always be and, as a former lawyer and somebody who clerked on the United States Supreme Court I will tell you, there is no violation of due process whatsoever..."- extracted from the audiotape of the PEP meeting bought by Betsy Combier after filing a FOIL request to the NYC BOE

November 26, 2007 Candelight Vigil

The School Law Blog

A Review of Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools by Betsy Combier

Lydia Segal's book puts the NYC, Chicago, and California Departments of Education on notice....we who have read this book know more about how the system is not there for our kids than "you" want us to know. Lydia Segal's book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools changes the public school reform movement forever. We can no longer assume that more money allocated to our schools will "fix" the disaster that is our public school system.

Lydia Segal draws on her 10 years of undercover investigation and research in over five urban school districts, including the three largest, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and the two most decentralized, Houston and Edmonton, Canada, to provide, in her new book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools, the details of the corruption, theft, fraud, and patronage that has overrun our public school establishment for several decades. There is no question that anyone who is interested in school reform -this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first - must read this book. Ms. Segal's research and information on the education establishment's 'dark' side outrages the reader, and incites us to demand change. Her book therefore, is much more than a book, it is a call to action. We cannot be bystanders any longer to the systemic abuse she so vividly describes, and we will never be able to listen in the same way ever again to school Principals, Superintendents, school custodians or district board members as they request more money "to help the children."

The book's detailed reports on the corruption and crime in our public schools, supported by 52 pages of interview notes, references and specific examples, provide irrefutable evidence that the current failures of our nation's public schools are not due to the lack of money but the impossibility of getting the money to the children who need it and for whom the money is allocated in the first place. Recent statistics show that students of all ages are not learning what they need to know, schools are overcome with violence, teachers are demoralized, and yet billions of dollars are literally shovelled into the system every year. The New York City school system receives more than $16 billion every year; Los Angeles, $7 billion; and Chicago, $3.6 billion. Where does this money go? We have all asked this question as we have walked through school hallways dodging the paint falling off the walls and ceilings, watching our children sitting on broken chairs, using bathrooms without running water or toilet paper, and struggling to achieve their personal best without the services and resources they are supposed to have. Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools is the first book ever to systematically examine school waste and corruption and how to fight it. Ms. Segal, an undercover school investigator turned law professor, documents where the money goes, how waste and fraud embedded in the operation of large school bureaucracies siphon money from classrooms, distort educational priorities, block initiatives, and what we can do to bring badly-needed change. She describes in detail how only a small percentage of the money allocated to students in our public schools actually gets used by them due to corruption and waste, and how city school systems scoring lowest on standardized tests tend to have the biggest criminal records and most payroll padding. Coding problems, the procurement process, compartmentalization and opacity of information leave administrators with only two options: good corruption (which ultimately helps the kids) and bad corruption (which never helps anyone but the perpetrator and his/her allies and accomplices). Indeed, the system fights those who try the good corruption route.

Ms. Segal argues that the problem is not usually bad people, but a bad system that focuses on process at the expense of results. Decades of rules and regulations along with layers of top-down supervision make it so hard to do business with school systems that they encourage the very fraud and waste they were designed to curb. She tells us about how the "godfathers" and "godmothers" (the school board members) obtain jobs for their "pieces" in order to protect the systemic waste and fraud from being dismantled or exposed. Fortunately, she writes, there are good people involved in the corruption as well who must violate the rules in order to get their jobs done. Nonetheless, absurdities abound: school systems following rules to save every penny spend thousands of dollars hunting down checks as small as $25; it takes so long to pay vendors for their work that some have to bribe school officials to move their checks along; caring Principals who want to fix leaky toilets may have to pay workers under the table because submitting a work order through the central office could, and often does, take years. Meanwhile, those who pilfer from classrooms get away with it because the pyramidal structure of large districts makes schools inherently difficult to oversee. What makes Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools a must-read is not only the fascinating - and depressing - details of the systemic wrong-doing but also Ms. Segal's suggestions for reform, based on the proven track records of school systems across North America that have successfully reduced waste and fraud and have pushed more resources into schools.

The pathology of the corruption suggests the remedy, Ms. Segal says, which is decentralization of power into the schools and the hands of the Principals. Distilling what successful school systems have done, Segal advocates new forms of oversight that do not clog up school systems and recommends giving principals more discretion over their school budgets as well as holding them accountable for job performance. She argues for "autonomy in exchange for performance accountability" as part of a bold, far-reaching plan for reclaiming our schools. Her conclusion is logical and convincing. Everyone who reads this book will find his or her perception of public school education changed forever. We cannot accept any longer that a generation of children has been abused by a system that is so full of greed and corruption without screaming "stop!" and "Your game is up!"

Segal reveals how systemic waste and fraud siphon millions of dollars from urban classrooms and shows how money is lost in systems that focus on process rather than on results, as well as how regulations established to curb waste and fraud provide perverse incentives for new forms of both. Anyone who is interested in school reform--this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school, and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first--must read this book. --

Lydia G. Segal is Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.

The NYC BOE FAMIS Online Tour

The FAMIS Portal Online Tour provides an overview and demonstration of the FAMIS Portal. Computer speakers or headphones are recommended. Choose an item of interest below, or click on the Introduction to proceed through all of the modules in sequence.

About Me

Reporter, paralegal, advocate,I will investigate, search on the internet and in all data bases for information that will help a person in need of resolution to a problem.I believe in substantive and procedural due process for all individuals, groups and organizations and trademarked the term "e-accountability" to describe the purpose of my work. I am the parent of four daughters.

Statcounter

Site Meter

Disclaimer

This page states the general terms of use under which you, the blog visitor (hereinafter "you", "user", or "visitor") may use NYCrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com. By reading this blog, you agree to all of the terms set forth below. You may reprint, copy, and use any article on this website as long as you do not sell or change the article and you cite this blog as your source. This blog reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to change any or all of the provisions of this "Terms of Use & Disclaimer Agreement" at any time; the agreement in effect at the time of your use shall govern your use and your use after the effective date of any changes to these Terms will be deemed acceptance of your acceptance of the changes. We have followed what we believe to be the guidelines of US Code TITLE 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: FAIR USE: "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." We will, if asked with good reason to remove any material from our site that the original owner feels may jeopardize their standing before the Law, do so. We oppose violence of any kind, disrespect, verbal or physical abuse, and any kind of theft or hurtful behavior toward anyone at any time, and expect all users of this blog to be mindful of these values and use the information we have collected in good faith. We have made every effort to describe the actions, not motives, of public people, and we have supported everything that we post with documents to prove the validity of what we say in order to not make any fraudulent or false claims. We believe that it is a civic duty to expose wrong-doing, and we have the legal right to name the perpetrators who pursue illegal activities as defined by the respondents to their actions. If a public official or employee writes, says, or does anything that is against the Laws of this country or that falsifies data which leads to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, verbal and/or physical abuse of a student/parent/teacher, we claim license to post the acts of such people on our website, with the name of the perpetrator. The truth is not defamatory. We claim that we are not "out to get" any particular person.You agree that you do not acquire any ownership rights in any downloaded content. You further agree that all rights in the site and any of the content found on the site not granted to you under this agreement are expressly reserved to the editor. You agree to not extract any content in order to repurpose or resell the site's content or tools, and you agree to not "scrape" and/or reformat any information without the written permission of the editor. This blog protects and enforces copyrights for its' own creative material and respects the copyright property of others, as well as our right to "FAIR USE". We do not permit materials known by us to be infringing on the copyright of others to be on the site, and we ask that you notify us promptly if you believe that any materials infringe upon a third-party copyright. Upon receipt of a proper notice of claimed infringement under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) we will respond promptly to remove or disable access to the material claimed to be infringing that is in our direct control, assuming that there is also infringement of FAIR USE. This agreement and any policies and rules posted on this blog constitute the complete and exclusive and final expression of the agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No waiver by the editor of this blog or you of any breach or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or subsequent breach or default.This blog provides as a service homepages of websites we believe may be helpful to the user; we provide these links and resources solely as a convenience to you, the user, and we do not endorse the content of these sites. We are not responsible for the content of any linked sites and make no representations regarding the content or accuracy of materials on these sites. If you visit any sites linked to this site, you do so at your own risk. We will not assume any responsibility for the servicing or replacing of equipment or data, or any costs for either. This site and its material are provided on an "as is" basis without any warranties of any kind. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, SHALL THE EDITOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION USE OF OR RELIANCE ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THIS BLOG - WHETHER BASED ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY AND WHETHER THE EDITOR IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES - INTERRUPTIONS, ERRORS, DEFECTS, MISTAKES, OMISSIONS, DELETIONS OF FILES, DELAYS IN OPERATION OR TRANSMISSION, NONDELIVERY OF INFORMATION, DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATIONS, OR ANY OTHER FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE. THE EDITOR OF THIS BLOG DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, AND THE WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. YOU AGREE THAT ANY RECOURSE FOR DISSATISFACTION OR PROBLEMS WITH THIRD-PARTY GOODS OR SERVICES WILL BE SOUGHT FROM THE THIRD-PARTY PROVIDER DIRECTLY.To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, you will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless The EDITOR OF THIS BLOG (and any of her subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, distributors, third party providers, and licensors) from and against all claims, liability, and expenses, including attorney's fees and legal fees and costs, arising out of your use of the site or your breach of any provision of this agreement. The Editor reserves the right, in her sole discretion and at her own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you. You will cooperate as fully as reasonably required in the defense of any claim.This agreement, your performance under it, and any disputes arising under it shall be governed exclusively by the laws of internet usage as stated by the federal courts of the United States. You agree to pay all legal fees incurred by any legal action filed against the Editor of this blog in any action in which she as the defendant prevails.Any information collected about your visit to the web site is non-personal in nature and used solely for the purpose of helping us to assess the areas of our site that are most useful to visitors, and therefore need to be as complete and user-friendly as possible. In the area of listserv sign-ups, contribution data, and/or any other email or membership sign-up option now or in the future on our site, all information is collected on a strictly voluntary and confidential basis, and will not be sold, used or released for any third-party purpose. We do not permit any transactions from or by any person who is 13 years old or younger.